Based on everything everyone has said I guess it's safe to say that LPF's religion is about every religion in the world.
Anyone up for debating the existence of God?
[That one question above got really Off-topic from the topic of lasers]

__________________This guy's not getting blinded. Got the safety.In school; gonna take me time to answer stuff.
1W 445 nm laser.
Resurrected green 5 mW green module
There are two kinds of light: one that illumines and one that glares
-James Thurber (unadapted)
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET HIGHLY OFF-TOPIC: Here"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; if thine enemy be thirsty, give him water to drink;so will you heap burning coals upon his head, and God will reward thee."-Proverbs.

Now for a step-by-step logical analysis:
First, many things worn by people are offensive or deemed inappropriate by some (i.e. low-cut clothing, satanic imprints, body cuttings, etc.). Yet they are allowed. My point is that the government should allow religious clothing as most of the clothing worn by religious factions are not repulsive or disgusting in any way (Christians: the cross, Islam, their traditional garb, Jews, their own traditional garb).
However, whenever a cult arises that seeks to imprint or display upon themselves things that are generally agreed on and found within the heart of people as obviously repulsive and/or satanically suggestive, people may report those found to the government. So the person who wants to wear his hat should do so in a private and not flamboyantly public way.
So should all religious people who want to spread their teachings; they should seek to be moderate in their expression of their belief; yet whenever someone asks them of what they hope in (or don't hope in, as in atheists), they should tell them straightforwardly.
Hope this lengthy paragraph helped!

__________________This guy's not getting blinded. Got the safety.In school; gonna take me time to answer stuff.
1W 445 nm laser.
Resurrected green 5 mW green module
There are two kinds of light: one that illumines and one that glares
-James Thurber (unadapted)
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET HIGHLY OFF-TOPIC: Here"If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; if thine enemy be thirsty, give him water to drink;so will you heap burning coals upon his head, and God will reward thee."-Proverbs.

Here's a question for discussing: Should the right to wear religious clothing/accessories be protected by the government?

Yes, with one notable exception. Clothes that can serve to hide the identity of the wearer should only be permitted if the wearer publicly displays who they are in the form of a large name, and gender tag.

Either that, or just have absolute freedom with regards to clothing, or accessories, with the only limitation being that they do not physically affect anyone else.

Further, I don't think the question should be whether the government should protect this right, rather that the government should have no say in, and prevent anyone else from doing so.

Either that, or just have absolute freedom with regards to clothing, or accessories, with the only limitation being that they do not physically affect anyone else.

This brings up an interesting point, the kirpan always sparks debate in the news here. It's a ceremonial dagger that is a religious requirement of Sikhs to wear.
Was quite the debate a few years ago when a kid brought one to school.
Should there be exemptions to carry a kirpan where other weapons are not allowed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfinitusEquitas

Further, I don't think the question should be whether the government should protect this right, rather that the government should have no say in, and prevent anyone else from doing so.

I've always been of the belief that the government should have no say in it, and that everyone regardless of religious affiliation should he held to the same standards

This brings up an interesting point, the kirpan always sparks debate in the news here. It's a ceremonial dagger that is a religious requirement of Sikhs to wear.
Was quite the debate a few years ago when a kid brought one to school.
Should there be exemptions to carry a kirpan where other weapons are not allowed?

That is a thorny question. Personally I think the answer would be to permit the carry of the kirpan, but to also permit the carry of knives by others, should they choose to do so. So no special treatment/religious exemption would needed.

I'm not a fan of the legislative attitude that people need to be protected from themselves via restriction of anything that can be viewed as dangerous. Should someone do something that harms themselves or another, someone is stabbed, or slashed, well there are laws to deal with that already in place.

whenever a cult arises that seeks to imprint or display upon themselves things that are generally agreed on and found within the heart of people as obviously repulsive and/or satanically suggestive, people may report those found to the government.

Are you saying anything satanic and repulsive should be reported to the government, or just if the citizen happens to be of a different religion than you?

Which government organization, exactly, should we be reporting this to?

I've never understood why religion is such a protected thing. Its just a belief.
If I worship the sun, does that mean I can carry a flamethrower around with me since I believe it represents the eternal flame of the sun?

Wearing a knife solely for religious requirements is a bullshit excuse and one that should not be granted as an exception.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARG

Here's a question for discussing: Should the right to wear religious clothing/accessories be protected by the government?

I think that people should be free to wear whatever they choose only if it does not pose a potential threat towards society.
For this reason I don't think that the full burka for example should be allowed since it conceals the identity of the person.
Even if they had a name tag on them does not mean that that is their actual identity. The security problems that certain religious clothing
such as the burka pose should not be protected as a right by the government nor should they allow such clothing to be worn.

Religious people need to adapt to the society in which they live, not the other way around.

While I agree with you that the burka does present a security problem, do you not think that people should be entitled to a basic level of privacy?

For example, which is really more revealing about you, your license with your address, and date of birth listed, or just your face?

Should people be required to show who they are, and if so to what extent?

Personally I would be satisfied enough with simply a title, name, and ***. If the title implies the *** that's good enough. I think people should be permitted to maintain a basic level of anonymity in public, with the exception of sensitive locations... basically airports.

We are afforded the right to privacy. If you are walking down the street obeying all laws, an officer can ask you for proof of identification. However, you are under no obligation to provide them with anything until you are placed under arrest and even then you have the right to remain silent. You bring up a valid argument though that if you are in a government building or driving a car and you are asked for ID you are expected to produce documentation.

The burka doesn't infringe on law enforcement officers ability to do their job. That would be like outlawing ski masks, a coat, and gloves.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the burka a cultural requirement rather than a religious one?

No, you are correct. The burka isn't a religious requirement. It's an extremist interpretation of the Qran's requirement to dress modestly. It wasn't so long ago women in Afghanistan were wearing mini skirts! Alqaida who were once seen as the good guys started enforcing the burka in the 70s / early 80s.